Decision Support Systems and Tools

  • Ramiro Neves
  • Ali Ertürk
  • Irina Chubarenko
  • Arianna Azzellino
  • Bojan Srdjevic
  • Boris Chubarenko
  • Ercan Zengin
  • Eric Masson
  • Georg Umgiesser
  • Karim Hilmi
  • Pedro Galvão
  • Stefania Gottardo
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series book series (NAPSC)

Traditionally water is managed by different geographical compartments (e.g. rivers, reservoirs, lakes, estuaries, ground) using specific tools for each compartment and often by different institutions. When specific tools are used for each compartment, the interactions between compartments are specified through boundary conditions (e.g. aquifer recharge in case of aquifer management), which must be set by means of field data describing spatial and temporal variability.

The specification of the boundary conditions between compartments into a watershed causes errors in hindcasting and makes forecasts difficult because data related to boundaries must be forecasted or generated. IWRM solves this difficulty because management tools for all the geographical compartments are coupled and used interactively. The implementation of an integrated approach is more complex, but its exploitation is much more economical, minimizing the amount of data required for running the models.

Another advantage of the integrated approach is that the modelling system provides results to all the stakeholders in the catchment and consequently it stimulates the cooperation among them. In the framework of this cooperation it will be easier to share knowledge, data and working methods, with advantages in terms of investment and terms of solutions acceptance by stakeholders.

Keywords

Radar Sewage Turkey Denitrification Macrophyte 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Afifi, A., Clark V., 1996. Computer-Aided Multivariate Analysis. Texts in Statistical Science. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  2. Andreu, J., Capilla, J., Sanchis, E., 1996. Aquatool, a generalized decision-support system for water-resource planning and operational management, J. Hydrol., 177: 269-291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., Williams, J.R., 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. J. Am. Water. Resour. As. 34: 73-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azzellino, A., Bonomo, L., Salvetti, R., Vismara, R., 2006. Combined use of the EPA-QUAL2E simulation model and factor analysis to assess the source apportionment of point and non point loads of nutrients to surface waters. Sci. Total Environ. 371: 214-222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behrendt, H., Huber, P., Kornmilch, M., Opitz, D., Schmoll, O., Scholz, G., Ueber, R., 2000. Nutrient emissions into river basins of Germany. Umweltforschungsplan des Bundesministers für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit Forschungsvorhaben Wasser Forschungsbericht 296(25): 515.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, L.C., Barnwell, T.O., 1987. The Enhanced Stream Water Quality Models QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS: Documentation and User Manual, EPA 300/3- 87/007, EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.Google Scholar
  7. Conan, C., Bouraoui, F., de Marsily, G., Bidoglio, G., 2003. Modeling flow and nitrate fate at catchment scale in Brittany (France). J. Environ. Qual. 32 : 2026-2032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapra, S.C., 1997. Surface Water Quality Modelling. WBC/McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Deliman, P.N., Glick, R.H., Ruiz, C.E., 1999. Review of Watershed Water Quality Models. Technical Report W-99-1, US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  10. EEA, 2003. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. Technical Report n.25, European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  11. Galbiati, L., Bouraoui, F., Elorza, F.J., Bidoglio, G., 2006. Modeling diffuse pollution load-ing into a Mediterranean lagoon: development and application of an integrated surface-subsurface model tool. Ecol. Model. 193: 4-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giupponi, C., 2005. Decision support systems for implementing the European water frame-work directive: the MULINO approach. Environ. Modell. Softw. 22: 248-258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gonenc, I.E., Wolflin, J. (ed.), 2005. Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Processes and Modeling for Sustainable Use and Development. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  14. Gonenc, I.E., Koutitonsky, V.G., Rashleigh, B., Ambrose, Jr. R.B., Wolflin, J.P., 2007. Assessment of the Fate and Effects of Toxic Agents on Water Resources. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karjalainen, S.M., Hekkinen, K., 2005. The RiverLife project and implementation of Water Framework Directive. Environ. Sci. Policy 8: 263-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P., Linkov, I., 2005. Application of mul-ticriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) 1(2): 95-108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loucks, D.P., 1995. Developing and implementing decision support systems: a critique and a challenge. Water Resour. Bull. 31(4): 571-582.Google Scholar
  18. Loucks, D.P., van Beek, E., 2006. Water Resources Systems Planning and Management - An Introduction to Methods, Models and Applications. UNESCO Publ., Paris.Google Scholar
  19. Lung, W.S., 2001. Water Quality Modeling, Water Quality Modeling for Wasteload Allocations and TMDLs. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  20. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), 2005. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user. Guide. OECD Statistics Working Paper. STD/DOC(2005)3.Google Scholar
  21. Salvetti, R., Azzellino, A., Vismara, R., 2006. Diffuse source apportionment of the Po river eutrophying load to the Adriatic sea: assessment of Lombardy contribution to Po river nutrient load apportionment by means of an integrated modelling approach. Chemosphere 65: 2168-2177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Salvetti, R., Acutis, M., Azzellino, A., Carpani, M., Giupponi, C., Parati, P., Vale, M., Vismara, R. Modelling the point and non point nitrogen loads to the Venice lagoon (Italy): the application of water quality models to the Dese-Zero basin. Desalination (in press).Google Scholar
  23. Shanahan, P., Henze, M., Koncsos, L., Rauch, W., Reichert, P., Somlyòdy, L., Vanrolleghem, P. 1998. River water quality modelling: II problems of the arts. Wat. Sci. Tech., 38: 245-252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shim, J.P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J.F., Power, D.J., Shards, R., Carlsson, C., 2002. Past, present and future of decision support technology. Decis. Support Syst. 33: 111-126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shoemaker, L., Lahlou, M., Breyer, M., Kumar, D., Kratt, K., 1997. Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA841-B-97-006.Google Scholar
  26. Terwilliger, K., Wolflin, J.P., 2005. Decision making for sustainable use and development (Chapter 8). In: Coastal Lagoons: Ecosystem Processes, and Modeling for Sustainable Use and Development, Eds: Gonenc, I.E., Wolflin, J.. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  27. Thomann, R.V., Mueller, J.A., 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control. Harper Collins, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Watkins, D.W., McKinney, D.C., 1995. Recent developments associated with decision support systems in water resources. US National report to IUGG, 1991-1994, Review of Geophysics, vol. 33 supplement, American Geophysical Union.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramiro Neves
    • 1
  • Ali Ertürk
    • 2
  • Irina Chubarenko
    • 3
  • Arianna Azzellino
    • 4
  • Bojan Srdjevic
    • 5
  • Boris Chubarenko
    • 3
  • Ercan Zengin
    • 6
  • Eric Masson
    • 7
  • Georg Umgiesser
    • 8
  • Karim Hilmi
    • 9
  • Pedro Galvão
    • 10
  • Stefania Gottardo
    • 11
  1. 1.Instituto Superior TécnicoLisboaPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Environmental EngineeringIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Atlantic Branch of P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Federation
  4. 4.Politecnico di Milano (University of Technology)Italy
  5. 5.Department of Water Mangement, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of Novi SadSerbia
  6. 6.Ankara Water and Sewage Administration, ASKIAnkaraTurkey
  7. 7.UFR Géographie et AménagementUSTLVilleneuve-d’Ascq CedexFrance
  8. 8.ISMAR-CNR (Marine Science Institute)VeniceItaly
  9. 9.Institut National de Recherche HalieutiqueCasablancaMorocco
  10. 10.Hidromod Modelação em EngenhariaLda. LisboaPortugal
  11. 11.CVRVenice Research ConsortiumItaly

Personalised recommendations